W e g ra n t ap p e llan t’s u n o p p o se d m o tio n to c o n c e a l h is tru e id e n tity * thr oughoutthi s or derand j udgm ent , and w e make perm anentt he pr ovi s i onal s eal pl ace d on thi s ent i r e mat t eron D ece m ber5, 2006. T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he ** doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary28,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 6236 v. ( W . D . O kl ahoma) J OH N D OE, *

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . CR- 0 5 - 1 1 3 - 1 - C)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T ** B efor e T A C H A , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , P O R F IL IO and AN DE RS ON , C irc u it Judg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.O ne pac kage a l s o cont ai ned a s ubs t ance w hi ch fi el d t es t ed pos i t i ve for 1 coca i ne. -2- A p p e llan t p led g u iltyto tw o c o u n ts o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te m ethamphet ami ne. H e w as s ent ence d t o 235 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entfol l ow ed by fi v e y e a r s o f

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . He a p p e a l s h i s s e n t e n c e , wh i c h we a ffi r m.

BA CKGROUND O n M ay19, 2005, U ni t ed St at es Post al I ns pect i on Ser vi ce ( “U SPIS”) a u th o rities in ter c e p ted a su sp icio u s p a c k a g e m a iled f ro m L o n g B e a c h , C a lifo rn ia t o an i ndi vi dual named “C hr i s H al l ” i n N or m an, O kl ahoma. O n M ay20, t he author i t i es i nt er cept ed anothers us pi ci ous packa ge al s o m ai l ed fr om L ong B eac h and addr es s ed t o t he s ame “C hr i s H al l ” buti n Ponca C i ty , O kl ahoma. W hen a drug- s ni ffi ng dog al ert ed t o bot h packa ges , s ear ch w arr ant s w er e obt ai ned and a s ear ch of the tw o packa ges r evea l ed theycont ai ned met hamphet ami ne. 1 C ontr ol l ed del i ver i es of the pac kages w er e made, fol l ow i ng w hi ch appe l l antw as arrested in N o rm an , O k laho m a, an d tw o o ther ind ividu als, A lfred L ee M o o re, Jr . a n d B u c k A l l e n J o n e s , w e r e a r r e s t e d i n P o n c a C i ty. A p p e llan t ap p a re n tlyb e g a n c o o p e ra tin g w ith law a u th o rities a f ter h is arr es t . H e offer ed i nform at i on aboutt he cr i m es w i th w hi ch he w as char ged, and al s o offe r ed t o hel p author i t i es i dent i fyhi s C al i forni a s our ce. A l though appel l ant i dent i fi ed hi s C al i forni a s our ce, appar ent l yno fede r al i nves t i gat i on and-3-

pr os ecut i on w er e s ucce s s ful l yi ni t i at ed. I ns t ead, the C al i forni a s our ce w as arr est ed b yl ocal l aw enfo rcem ent autho ri t i es i n C al i forni a. A pp el l ant al so offe r ed t o pr ovi de i nform at i on aboutanotheri ndi vi dual bei ng pr os ecut ed on unr el at ed cha r ges i n O kl ahoma, butauthor i t i es ul t i m at el yconcl uded appe l l ant w as not r el i able and h e w as neve r cal l ed as a w i tness t o tes t i fyatthat i nd i vidual ’s trial. A p p e llan t tes tifie d a t h is s e n ten c in g h e a rin g th a t h e b e liev e d th a t h is cooper at i on i nduced M oor e t o cooper at e. Ul t i ma t e l y , a fo u r - c o u n ts u p e r c e d i n g i n d i c t me n tc h a r g e d a p p e l l a n twi th t wo co u n ts: o n e fo r po sses sion w ith inten t t o d istri b u te m etha m p h etam ine a n d o n e fo r p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te a m ix tu re o r su b sta n c e c o n tain in g a d e tec tab le amount of m ethamphet ami ne, al l i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . T he i ndi ctm entchar ged M oor e and J ones w i th pos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne and of a mi xtur e ors ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a det ect abl e amountof m ethamphet ami ne, and a id in g a n d a b e ttin g , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ) a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 . Jo n es p led g u il typ u rsua n t t o a p lea a g ree m en t, an d ap p ell an t and M o o re p ro c e e d e d to trial. Du r i n g t h e t r i a l , a p p e l l a n t , wi th o u ta p l e a b a r g a i n , p l e d g u i l tyt o th e two c o u n ts a g a in st h im . In e x c h a n g e fo r h is g u iltyp lea , the g o v e rn m e n t ag re e d to s tr i k e i t s No t i c e o f

P r i o rCo n v i c t i o n s wh i c h i th a d fi l e d p u r s u a n tt o 2 1 U. S . C. § 851. A ft erM oor e’ s t r i al ended i n a hung j ur y , he pl ed gui l tyt o tw o count s of-4-

us i ng a ce l l ul art el ephone t o fac i l i t at e pos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne w i th i nt ent to d is tr ib u te . J ones w as t he fi r s tone s ent ence d. T he governm entfi l ed a mot i on for dow nw ar d departur e bas ed on hi s pr ovi s i on of s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance , i ncl udi ng t es t i fy i ng atthe tr i al of M oor e and appel l ant . T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed the m ot i on, and J ones w as s ent ence d t o for tym onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed byfi ve y e a rs o f su p e rv ise d re lea se . M o o re w a s th e n se n ten c e d to tw o fo rty -e ig h t m o n th s e n te n c e s , to ru n c o n s e c u tiv e ly, fo llo w e d b yo n e y e a r o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . F i nall y , app el l ant w as sent enced t o tw o co ncu rr ent 235-m on th sentences, fol l ow ed byfi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. Pr i ort o hi s s ent enci ng hear i ng, ap p ell an t fi led a sen tenc ing m em o ran d u m ask ing the c o u rtfo r a d o w n w ard departur e ordevi at i on fr om t he advi s orys ent enci ng r ange unde rthe U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on, G ui del i nes M anual ( “U SSG ”) . A l s o pr i ort o the s ent enci ng hear i ng, the governm entfi l ed a mot i on foran ac cept ance of r es pons i bi l i tydow nw ar d adj us t m entt o r educe hi s t ot al offe ns e l evel byone poi nt i f th e c o u r ta w a r d e d a tw o - p o i n tr e d u c t i o n fo ra c c e p t a n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i ty. Fur therm or e, i n ant i ci pat i on of hi s s ent enci ng hear i ng, the U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on D epart m entpr epar ed a pr es ent ence r eport( “PSR ”) , w hi ch as s es s ed ap p ell an t a t o tal adjusted o ffen se lev el of thirty -sev en an d a c ri m inal h ist o ry c a te g o ry o f

V I. T h a t yie ld e d a n a d v is o ry G u id e lin e ra n g e o f 3 6 0 m o n th s to life . A ppel l antr ai s ed a numberof obj ect i ons , w hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtaddr es s ed atW e have r ece nt l ycl ar i fi ed the di ffe r ence betw een a departur e and a 2 var i ance w i th r es pectt o an advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange: [W ] hen a c our tr eac hes a s ent ence above orbel ow t he r ecomm ended G ui del i nes r ange thr ough appl i cat i on of C hapt erFourorFi ve of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , the r es ul t i ng i ncr eas e ordecr eas e i s r efe rr ed t o as a “de partur e. ” W hen a c our tenhanc es ordetr act s fr om t he recom m end ed rang e t hroug h ap pli cat i on of § 35 53 (a) fact ors, h o w e v e r, t h e in c re a s e o r d e c re a s e is c a lle d a “ v a ri a n c e .” U n it ed S tat es v . A tenc io, N o . 0 5 -22 7 9 , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 0 2 9 7 7 , at *5 n . 1 (10 th C ir . Jan . 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 ). -5- ap p ell an t’ s sen tenc ing h ea ri n g . A fter u p h o lding tw o o f h is objecti o n s, the c o u rt det erm i ned thatappel l ant ’ s t ot al adj us t ed offens e l evel w as thi r ty - thr ee, w hi ch, w i th a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I , y i el ded a G ui del i ne r ange of 235 t o 293 m on ths. D u ri n g the s en tenc ing h ea ri n g , ap p ell an t aga in so u g h t a do w n w ard d e p a rtu re o r a v a ria n c e f ro m th e a d v iso ryg u id e lin e ra n g e o n th e b a sis o f h is cooper at i on. T he di s tr i ctcourtfound “ther e ar e no ci r cumst ance s w arr ant i ng a 2 d e p a rtu re f

ro m th e g u id e lin e s in th is c a se .” T r. o f S e n ten c in g H r’g a t 3 9 , R . V o l. 3 . T h e c o u rt re c o g n iz e d , h o w e v e r, t h a t “ [ t] h a t d o e s n o t r e s o lv e th e q u e s tio n . . . w hetherthe gui del i nes s ent ence i s an appr opr i at e s ent ence . ” I d. T he courtw ent on t o not e that“[t ] he mostcompel l i ng r eas ons t hatI s ee fora s ent ence out s i de the gui del i nes i n t hi s cas e i s thatI bel i eve that[appe l l ant ] s houl d have be en cons i der ed fora dow nw ar d departur e. ” I d. at40. A ft eracknow l edgi ng thatt he courtcoul d not“for ce the governm entt o m ove fora depa r tur e fors ubs t ant i al a ss ista n c e a n d I c a n ’t d e p a rt a b se n t th a t m o tio n ,” id ., th e c o u rt p ro c e e d e d to-6-

i nqui r e w hethera var i ance fr om the gui del i ne r ange w as appr opr i at e i n l i ghtof appel l ant ’ s as s i s t ance t o the governm ent . A tthi s poi nt , a ce l l phone bega n r i ngi ng, and the di s tr i ctcourtdi r ect ed the per s on w i th the phone t o l eave the heari ng . T he co urtthen prono un ced sen t ence a s fol l ow s: I b e liev e th a t a s u b sta n tial a n d len g th yse n ten c e is n e c e ss a ryto p ro tec t th e p u b lic. I b e liev e a su b sta n tial a n d len g th yse n ten c e is nece s s aryt o s erve as an exa m pl e t o other s , even y ourow n chi l dr en, a s t o wh a th a p p e n s wh e n l i v e s a r e l i v e d wi th o u tr e g a r d fo rth e l a w. I b e liev e th a t a s u b sta n tial se n ten c e is n e c e ss a ryin o rd e r to pr ovi de anyki nd of drug r ehabi l i t at i on and tr eatm entfory ou s o that y ou can r eturn eventual l yt o s oci etydrug- fr ee. C ons i der i ng al l of the goal s of s ent enci ng, I thi nk thatthe gui del i ne r ange i s appr opr i at e i n thi s cas e bas ed pr i m ar i l yon y our s ubs t ant i al cr i m i nal hi s t ory . I ti s ther efor e myj udgm entthaty ou be i m pr i s oned fora t erm of 235 m onths on al l count s , t o be s erved c o n c u r r e n t l y. I d. at41. A ppel l antappea l s , ar gui ng “the di s tr i ctcour terr ed as a mat t erof l aw b e c a u se it d id n o t tak e th e d e fe n d a n t’s c o o p e ra tio n w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t in to acc ountand det erm i ned i tw as compel l ed t o i m pos e a s ent ence w i thi n the r ange of i m pr i s onm entes t abl i s hed byt he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at2. W e di s agr ee.-7- DI S CU S S I ON Si nc e the Sup r e me Court ’ s de c i s i on i n Uni t e d St a t e s v. Booke r , 54 3 U. S. 220 ( 2005) , the form er l ym andat oryfede r al s ent enci ng G ui del i nes ar e now adv i sory . “P ost -B oo ker, w e revi ew sent encing d eci si on s for r easona bleness , w h i c h h a s b o th p r o c e d u r a l a n d s u b s t a n t i v e c o m p o n e n t s . ” A t e n c i o , 2 0 0 7 WL 1 0 2 9 7 7 , at *6 . “In sett ing a p roc ed u rall yrea so n ab le sen tenc e, a d istri ct co u rt m us tcal cul at e the pr operadvi s oryG ui del i nes r ange a nd appl yt he fa ct or s s et fo rth in § 3 5 5 3 (a ).” I d . “A su b sta n tiv e lyre a so n a b le s e n ten c e u lti m a telyre flec ts the gr avi tyof the cr i m e and the § 3553( a) fac t or s as appl i ed t o the ca s e. ” I d. B ec au se d istri ct co u rt s co n ti n u e to c alcu lat e a G u idelines sen tenc e a s p art of thei rdet erm i nat i on of a r eas onabl e s ent ence , “w e cont i nue t o r evi ew t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes de novo, and w e r evi ew anyfac tual fin d in g s fo r c lea r e rro r.” U n ited S tate s v . T o w n ley, 4 7 2 F .3 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 5 -7 6 (1 0 th C i r. 20 07 ). W here a dis tri ctcou rt“corr ect l yapp l i es the G uidel i nes and i m po ses a s ent ence w i thi n t he appl i cabl e G ui del i ne r ange, t hats ent ence ‘ i s ent i t l ed t o a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . ’ ” I d. at1276 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. K ri stl , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (pe r cu ri am )). U S S G § 5 K 1 .1 p ro v id e s th a t: U pon m ot i on of the governm ents t at i ng thatt he defendanthas pr ovi ded s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance i n the i nves t i gat i on orpr os ecut i on of an o ther p erso n w h o h as c o m m itted a n o ffen se, th e c o u rtm ayd ep art from the g uidel i nes.-8-

P ri o r t o B o o k er, w e h eld th at “a d istri ct co u rt ’s au tho ri tyto co n side r a defe ndant ’ s s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance cl ai m ats ent enci ng i s condi t i oned upon a pr i or m o tio n o f

th e g o v e rn m e n t.” U n ited S tate s v . D u n c a n , 2 4 2 F .2 d 9 4 0 , 9 4 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). W h ile w e h a v e d e c lin e d to a d d re ss “ th e c o n tin u e d v italityo f th is ru le in th e a f te rm a th o f

. . . B o o k e r,” U n ite d S ta te s v . D o e , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 5 4 , 1 2 5 9 n .7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), w e n ee d n o t determ ine th at i ssu e in th is case . T h e d istri ct co u rt in this ca se c learlyrec o g n ized that, d esp it e the ab sen ce o f a m o ti o n to d ep art dow nw ar d, i thad the author i tyt o varyfr om the advi s oryG ui del i ne r ange i f the s ent enci ng fac t or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) s o couns el ed. I d. at1260- 61. T he di s tr i ctcourts peci fi cal l ycons i der ed w hetherappel l ant ’ s cooper at i on w i th and assistan ce to the g o v ern m en t sup p o rt ed a v arian ce . U lt im ately , the c o u rt co n clud ed that the s en tenc ing fa ctors in § 3 5 5 3 (a), p arti cu larl ythe a p p ell an t’ s cr i m i nal hi s t oryand the nee d t o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es , di d not s uppor ta var i ance . I tacc or di ngl ys ent ence d appel l anti n acc or dance w i th the l ow end of the advi s oryG ui del i ne r ange. W e conc l ude thatthe s ent ence i m pos ed w as both r eas oned and r eas onabl e. CO NC L US I ON Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM t he s ent ence i n thi s cas e. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge